spongeboob:davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

ArkAngel:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Hey this is Fark. Let's be honest, none of our Canadian girlfriends actually exist.

ArkAngel:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Read it one more time, it will give the Tribal government the right to try you for comitting crimes on Tribal Land, if you comitte a crime in NY state NY state tries you don't get to be tried in your home state. I don't see where it states that the Tribal Government can try you for crimes not on Tribal Lands.

Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it. If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it. Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial. How about informing yourself just once in your life instead of resorting to talking points?

Lee Jackson Beauregard:Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy! Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

Here's one now! It's almost as if this guy has no fkn idea what VAWA is, but gosh-dern, he's agin' it!

cameroncrazy1984:cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault. Yet liberals only want to protect the weak women who can't take care of themselves.

MyRandomName:cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault. Yet liberals only want to protect the weak women who can't take care of themselves.

MyRandomName:Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

clowncar on fire:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

No it is not, it is more like crossing a border so you don't get tried. See my linked article above or the other one about the lack of criminal prosecutions for crimes against women on Reservations

gadian:MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

meat0918:Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Before you can run in the general election you have to win the GOP Primary by winning the hearts and minds of hateful bigoted old white men. You also can't ever vote for anything that President Obama supports, as that is an automatic instant disqualification.

Jim_Callahan:Gyrfalcon: You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.

Know what else is underfunded, by a lot more than this, and will benefit humanity in general more than basically anything we can do on this planet? NASA. Close second: the NSA. But at some point I can accept that we have limited money and have to decide where to spend it, and the people that disagree with me aren't secretly Hitler and probably have a perspective as valid as my own.

Basically, you're in a democracy, deal with it and stop being a jackass.

//Also, your sentence-parsing skills could use some work since you even bolded the sentence but got my position exactly the opposite of correct despite it being right there in front of you.

And YOU should know by now I use "you" in both the singular and plural forms and wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically.

Basically, you're on Fark, deal with it and stop being so goddamn thin-skinned.

Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it. If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it. Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial. How about informing yourself just once in your life instead of resorting to talking points?

But does that mean there's more to the Violence Against Children and Puppies Act (VACPA) than the title suggests? Say it isn't so????!

Maybe stuff like this:

During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

gadian:MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree. That is why the bill supports both genders.

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Embassys are not soverign soil, I don't care how many times you've seen that Simpsons episode.

MyRandomName:Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it. If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it. Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial.

Such as ... treating gay people as human beings?

It's amazing how it hasn't sunk into Derpers that just because you don't like it doesn't make it "controversial" when you're part of a lunatic fringe way out of the mainstream American opinion.

ramblinwreck:gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree. That is why the bill supports both genders.

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

Ugh, of course I mean "22 senators are in favor of violence perpetrated on WOMEN."

davidphogan:Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

FTFA: During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

So it's really more like letting the Canadians charge you for beating up your girlfriend in Canada, even though you're a US citizen. So again, why would anyone have a problem with this? Isn't it a staple of modern law that you're tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred?

Lionel Mandrake:gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree. That is why the bill supports both genders.

It even covers gay people, whom Democrats believe are human beings.

Be fair, many Republicans believe gays are people they just want them to stay quiet. If gays want to vote Republican that is okay.

Lionel Mandrake:Raharu: I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.

No one knows. Liberals are always on the right side, and after a generation or so, conservatives tell themselves that they were, too. Did you know that MLK and Rosa Parks were big defenders of the 2nd Amendment?

You know, if you're serious about a presidential run, you might want to keep in mind that women account for slightly more than half of the voting population. You might also want to account for the fact that most men are good people who don't like the idea of domestic violence.

Roman Fyseek:During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

spongeboob:ArkAngel: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Read it one more time, it will give the Tribal government the right to try you for comitting crimes on Tribal Land, if you comitte a crime in NY state NY state tries you don't get to be tried in your home state. I don't see where it states that the Tribal Government can try you for crimes not on Tribal Lands.

Embassies in foreign nations (i.e. Canada) are officially the sovereign soil of their home nation. That's about as close as you can get to this situation

g4lt:So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide? Fine, let me.

So, you want to ignore that that '100 member body' is the current US Senate that is perhaps the most ideologically divided as it has been in the past 150 years? Yea, if you want to ignore that... and I suppose that 78% of the vote is almost universally accepted as a 'landslide', then yea, I suppose you have a point. I guess. Sort of.

clowncar on fire:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?